Talk:Bobby Jindal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Alternate explanations for '03 defeat

The article as it stands speculates whether racism may have played a part in Jindal's defeat. But if the article is correct, he was born in 1971. Any chance it was simply that a significant number of voters were simply uncomfortable with a 32-year-old governor? 69.143.31.101 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article's use of Democratic campaign propaganda language

Jindal's position on abortion should be reported in a non-partisan manner. The phrase "no abortions, no exceptions" is from a negative campaign mailer sent out by the Louisiana Democratic Party in the 2003 Gubernatorial campaign.

Here is a fair-use quote from a newsstory on capitolwatch.reallouisiana.com (a website of the Gannett News Service) from 12NOV2003


"Abortion again an issue in gubernatorial runoff

"The abortion issue arose Monday.

"A state Democratic Party mailer sent to women voters calls attention to Jindal's "no abortion, no exceptions" position. "Bobby Jindal is willing to let Louisiana women die to protect his extreme agenda," it says.

"Jindal said he was offended by the mailer.

"But Democratic Party Chairman Mike Skinner said the mailer's point "is simply to let Louisiana voters know Mr. Jindal's stand on the issues, and that is it in a nutshell."

"Blanco and Jindal both oppose abortion, but Blanco supports the exception for rape, incest and to save the life of the woman.

"Jindal opposes the exceptions but said if a procedure to save the life of the woman is performed that results in an abortion, that's OK. Gambit newspaper in New Orleans also said Jindal told it he supports the use of emergency-room contraception for rape victims who request it.

"The Blanco campaign said someone is making telephone calls in the Lafayette area saying Blanco is pro-choice."


It is reasonable to presume that the Gannett News Service is a credible source from which to derive Jindal's abortion position.

Also, the word "controversial" in the passage title is subjective (it can be as negative as the word "popular" is positive), so let us just use a neutral phrase, like "Policy positions".

[edit] "No abortions, no exceptions " is a direct quote from Bobby Jindal.

While this term may have been used in a mailer that some people may view as negative, it is a truthful statement to state that this is Bobby Jindal's stance on the abortion issue.

When I cited those three sources, they confirm this position. It is a truthful statement and there is nothing wrong with stating the truth. Notice the second link provided where Jindal states this in his own words "'I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions.".

He embraces the platform of "no abortions, no exceptions", he is not ashamed of it, so why should that not be the explanaton of his stance?

And since when has refering to "no abortions, no exceptions" been a partisan explanation of his stance on abortion? It is a description of the stance embraced by many in the pro-life community.

The prolifepac clearly uses such a phrase to describe itself. The American Life League is also clear that they wish to have no exceptions in any abortion law/amendment that is passed.

When it comes to the word "controversial", this is an area in the Jindal encyclopedia entry that deals with the issues that he supports that cause controversy. Will you deny that the three issues cited in this portion of the entry are controversial? Are there arguments over wether r not abortions should be allowed for rape cases? Yes. Since there are, there is controversy.

I could see the argument of being unbiased if the terms "radical" or "extremist" where used, but not controversial because those are issues that are, in fact, highly controversial.

For example, if I was discussing Michal Moore's theatrical release of F911, I could describe it as being controversial. This is a true and unbiased statement. There was much controversy surrounding that film. The same could be said for any issue that invokes emotional debates, such as a Jindals stance on abortion.

I would note that the wikipedia entry for abortion includes the term controversy. "Abortion has sometimes been a bitterly-fought battle in politics, particularly in the United States. The real controversy in the U.S. started in 1973 with the case of Roe vs. Wade, when the Supreme Court ruled abortion to be a constitutionally protected right. Specifically, they ruled that states could not forbid a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first three months (the first trimester) of her pregnancy."

-sources

One report on his stance on abortion can be seen here where it states "Blanco and Jindal both oppose abortion, but Blanco supports the exception for rape, incest and to save the life of the woman. Jindal opposes the exceptions but said if a procedure to save the life of the woman is performed that results in an abortion, that's OK."

Jindal is directly quoted on his stance on abortion here, where it states "On abortion, Jindal told the paper, 'I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.' "

The Gambit Weekly sites his stance as "he is anti-abortion -- with no exceptions".


[edit] Suggestion to rebalance

Looking at the Wikipedia pages for other U.S. Representatives, they usually don't go into the political beliefs of the officeholders. The few times they do, the mentions tend to be brief and are not characterized as "controversial", unless, like with Cynthia McKinney, a controversy over the views made national news. Even then, "controversial" doesn't get called out in a heading.

DanielZimmerman
I have looked at several member pages of the Louisiana Delagation as well as other people serving in both Houses of Congress and have found many examples where articles discuss things that go beyond the political beliefs and stances and even label them.
David Vitter's page refers to allegations of him being in "cahoots" with someone.
Ted Kennedy's page has a section on "personal scandals" where chappaquidick is discussed. His page also discusses his political views.
There are many more that we could look at like John McCain, Sam Brownback, Joe Liberman, Bill Frist and others where they get into the issues they believe in and more.
So I reject the claim that there are "few times" when this is done and would say that the more well known that the office holder is, the more likely there is to be information on that office holder. I have NEVER once seen Judd Gregg on the news. And his article is much smaller than other people. So I think it is merely a matter of how well known the person is which dictates how much content is on a page and not a matter of how members of Congress are cited on Wikipedia
DanielZimmerman
The entries of Senators who are all either current Presidential candidates or former Presidential candidates does not strike me as a good baseline for judging the appropriateness of something in the entry of a first-term Representative.
None of the other Representatives from Lousisiana have a policy positions section of any kind. None have their specific positions on any political issume mentioned. Out of the entire House delegations of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, abortion is mentioned only in two other pages. One of those is for the House Majority Leader (and his approach to exceptions is not detailed), in the other, abortion is mentioned en passant. The comparative emphasis relative to the other Representatives seems, if not non-neutral, at least disproportionate.
Perhaps more should be done to add more information to other member pages in Congress. Education is never a bad thing and the more people can know about a person, the better informed they can be about who is representing him/her.


Given that general approach to issues in other Representatives' pages, putting this particular Representative's abortion position in a section with a heading that declares it "controversial", with repeated references cited, certainly gives an impression of saying "Can you believe he thinks this!", rather than a simple attempt to inform. That the choice of wording in the entry is the same as that used by political opponents, and is one that the Representative objected to, the impression is even stronger.

DanielZimmerman
Bobby Jindal does not object to the label of "no abortions, no exceptions". I cited that fact.
If you go back in the history and look at my initial posting of Jindal's policy positions you will see that I stated his stance on abortion in one line and one line only.
The only reason I posted the references to prove that he, in fact, supports that policy position is because other people kept editing those statements out as not being factual.
I would say that moving the quotes about his stance on abortion to the talk page and just saying "jindal supports a policy of no abortions with no exceptions" would be an acceptable edit. In fact, I will probably do that now to get rid of the perception of "I cannot believe he believes this".
And I described my feelings on the term "controversial" earlier in this page. Stating that something is controversial is not taking a stance for or against that position. I could say "the death penalty is a controvercial stance" and you would not know if I am pro or anti death penalty.
Calling something controversial in one enty and not calling it controversial in other entries suggests that there is a unique degree of controversy where it is so labeled. I note both Tom DeLay and Sheila Jackson Lee have abortion mentions and sections on controversy in their entries, yet the abortion positions of both are not mentioned in the controversy sections.
I agree, in general, that controversial is not a necessarily loaded term. But calling out Jindal's abortion position as a "controversial policy position", when the abortion stance for every other Representative in Louisiana and the bordering states is either unmentioned or not described as controversial, implies that Jindal's position is uniquely controversial.
DanielZimmerman


I'd recommend eliminating the word "controversial", and reduce the discussion of his position to "He opposes almost all abortions, with only a partial exception for proceedures to save the life of the mother that result in termination of the pregnancy."


DanielZimmerman

Daniel--I agree. I feel that the word controversy is a POV term.

Zeus1233
The word controversy is used to describe abortion in a wikipedia article. How about this, I will reword to Stance on Controversial issues.
I cannot reduce the abortion position to anything other than his publically stated stance. To do otherwise would not be keeping the article factual. I will probably word it in 2 sentances. Saying he supports "no abortions, no exceptions" but does not include those pregnancies terminated by the "double effect" in his definition of abortion.
DanielZimmerman

All of the quotes and stances here are skewed to align with what is apparently the Democratic strategy to defeat Jindal. Given that most of the edits are made by the author of Jindalisbad.com, who includes a link to his own blog at the bottom, maybe there are some more objective editors who can make this a more neutral piece? Tpwk47 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

Just a random user here. Reading the "Positions on selected issues" section i got the impression that the author was in personal disagreement and was biased againt Mr. Jindal. I feel that the content is not appropriate for a wiki artical and it does not appear objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.116.254 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsement changes

The wording was changed, removing the endorsement of the Republican Party and stating his endorsement by Republicans and Democrats. The discussion that took place at that time was that the state party would typically not endorse a candidate if there are other Republican candidates in the race. The fact that they endorsed Jindal when Mike Rogers was still in the race was a change. Stating that Democrats supported Jindal while Mike Rogers was still in the race just doesnt make sense.

[edit] Revert 22 Ap 06

I just reverted the edit by User:Joshuataylor as it removed much content from the article without discussion and replaced it with copied text apparently from [1]. -- Infrogmation 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About being the "most popular Republican candidate"

He may very well be the most popular Republican candidate and the Republican frontrunner in the 2007 Governors race. However, is this something that occured after Katrina/Rita. If you took the "obvious" standpoint the only potential person that could be considered more popular statewide in Louisiana would be David Vitter.

Basically, I am asking for a source for the statement showing some polling data that he is the "most popular Republican" in Louisiana and that he is the "frontrunner in the 2006 Election". I also want to see why Hurricane Katrina and Rita would have anything to do with said polling data.

Also, see WP:NOT. Im not sure that such information is encyclopedic. It would be nice if such edits would be made by actual users. I will give the author a day or two to cite or I will remove as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV DanielZimmerman 13:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for loss in governors race citations.

Racism DanielZimmerman 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

failure to respond to attack ads DanielZimmerman 21:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added 2 Category

Added Indian Christians category and Punjabi category--71.30.177.228 07:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we be including all his votes?

A section was entered showing several votes in the 110th congress (but only those where he voted with the Democratic party line... neglecting those where he voted against the Democrats). If we include all votes, these sections can get very lengthy.

I removed the editorial comment where the person made the claim that Bobby Jindal has "bipartisan credentials". That sort of thing violates WP:NPOV, since one persons "bipartisans credentials" could be another persons "political maneuvering". I think that the sections stating his votes should be removed because there are already webpages committed to showing what Bobby Jindal voted on and when. This wikipedia page already points to those pages. Someone who is concerned about Bobby Jindal's record has every opportunity to use the links provided for them.

I will wait at least a week and if there is no objection I will delete both sections on the congressional votes. DanielZimmerman 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Votes on particularly notable or controversial bills could be mentioned in the positions section. His voter against embrionic stem-sell research, for instance, is related to his strong pro-life position on abortion. But the seperate sections need to go as they duplicate information better listed elsewhere (like the House web site). In fact, seeing your comment, I am going to boldly remove them right now. Eluchil404 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Very bold indeed! Im glad someone else agreed so it was not a move that had to be done unilaterally. DanielZimmerman 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I also edited the abortion section to clean it up, and in doing so removed the votes but maintained the links to his voting record. Stating that he voted with the Republican party on every abortion related issue should be enough. DanielZimmerman 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description of "Jindalisgood.com". Is it valid?

The website "jindal is good" seems to be more of a commercial website promoting a certain store, containing a lot of fiction about Congressman Jindal. Should we remove this link from wikipedia? DanielZimmerman 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will remove the "jindal is good" link soon.... or at least change the description to more adequately describe the perceived purpose of the site. DanielZimmerman 05:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsmakers: The People Behind Today's Headlines, 2006. Profile on Bobby Jindal.

What information in this article was referenced in that article? Could that information be found in other articles that are already linked? DanielZimmerman 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember specifically which information I used; this was an edit I did almost a year ago. I know it was information concerning his early life and career before the 2003 gubernatorial election. I'm sorry I can't be more specific; I was new to Wikipedia then, and didn't always provide full footnotes. That being said, I don't see why we can't have a mix of print and online sources for this article; not everything is available on the internet.Praxedis G 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't be restricted to online sources, especially if certain information is only available in "print". I also see no policies/guidelines requiring only sources that can be linked to. With that said, I am fairly confident that any information included in that printed document could also be found in several of the pages that have been linked to by the other contributors and see no reason to include a redundant source. The article will also be "cleaner" without unlinked sources. If you can find that one peice of information that was found in that reference that is not referenced other places then by all means, that source should be kept. However, if you cannot find the peice of information that was found in that source, i suggest we delete it... because there is no proof that the item is actually a source for this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Was this the edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Jindal&diff=55074873&oldid=55025116 DanielZimmerman 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I have a feeling the edit was more substantial than that one, but I really don't remember. It WAS a long time ago..... But you can delete the citation if you want; I really don't feel that strongly either way.Praxedis G 22:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me either way. Ill let someone else be "bold" and do it if they so desire. DanielZimmerman 05:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley Effect statement? Keep or remove?

Conservateur added that "Jindal's narrow loss has been cited as an example of the Bradley Effect". I went ahead and provided a link to a webpage that does "cite" this. However, is this an encyclopedic fact? Or is this just the opinion of the user and the webpage I linked to? Can we verify that this was indeed the "Bradley Effect" in play? If we cannot verify it, then should that comment be included in the article? Or is the statement of "fact" that someone has claimed it, regardless of the actuallity of the claim? Thoughts? DanielZimmerman 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts . . . It is now sourced that at least one person thought Jindal's narrow loss was due to the Bradley effect. However, as the source cited seems to be a political blog (and not an especially notable one, unless I'm wrong), I don't think it should be in the article. To me, it comes down to this--why is it notable that some random person out there thinks this? If I can see that it isn't just some random person, then I'll favor having it in the article. I mean, lots of people can say things on the internet. If it was in a major newspaper editorial column or in Time or something like that, then that would be completely different. Right now it doesn't seem especially notable. janejellyroll 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
While I reject the concept of notability in the discussion of what should be in articles, I still removed the information from the article. On the Bradley effect talk page I showed data that proved that Jindal's loss was not an example of the Bradley effect, so I removed the information there and here. To be fair, this article wasn't claiming that the loss WAS because of the bradley effect, it just stated that some people believe it to be an example of the bradley effect. However, citing those people here would seem to take away from the encyclopedic content of wikipedia. Why include the "fact" that people believe incorrect information about the loss? And you are correct, a lot of people say "things" on the internet. That does not automatically qualify them for inclusion in an encyclopedic article. DanielZimmerman 21:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First district: Conservative or Republican?

There have been edits back and forth about whether LA01 is "conservative" or "republican". To me, stating that LA01 is a "Republican District" is false. There is a plurality of Democrats in LA01. The fact that they HAVE voted for Republicans who are conservative does not change the voter registration of the district, it just changes the political leanings of the district. I say that it should be reverted back to "Conservative" until voter registration records show a plurality/majority of registered republicans in the district. I will wait to revert it back to give people time to comment. DanielZimmerman 08:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree--nearly all of the 1st's state legislators are Republican, and the district has not supported a Democrat for president since 1980. More importantly, despite the Democratic plurality, Democrats have not made a serious bid for this district since Bob Livingston won it in that '77 special election. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... Blueboy96 15:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the district has voted for Republicans and predominantly so. However, this is an encyclopedia and it is the duty of those who edit the encyclopedia to give facts. I have a problem saying that it is the "most Republican district" when there may very well be another district with a higher percentage of Republicans in it. Basically, I think we would need the statistics to show that the percentage of republicans in the district is higher in LA01 than any other district for someone to assert that it is the "most republican district". Stating that the district has a plurality of Democrats and stating that the district tends to vote for Conservative candidates is the "better" way to say it. To have any other assertion made, we would need to see the hard facts that prove it. Otherwise, the entry becomes unencyclopedic. DanielZimmerman 05:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does Republican Study Committee belong on the "positions" section?

I would think that it would belong in some other portion of the page. DanielZimmerman 08:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion to Catholicism

Quoth the article:

Jindal was a Hindu but converted to Catholicism in high school at Baton Rouge Magnet High School.

It's not clear to me from the high school's article, but generally in the US schools called "magnet" are public schools. Thus, I'm assuming that he didn't convert to Catholicism as a result of religious instruction at high school, though the sentence sort of gives you that impression. I imagine that a couple of things have been conflated -- (a) that he converted to Catholicism while he was of high school age, and (b) that he attended Baton Rouge Magnet High School. I'd like to separate them out to make this clearer, but just wanted to make sure I had my facts straight before doing so. --Jfruh (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that unless the conversion happened at the school, that you would be correct in making two sentances out of that. Sentance one would be that he attended Baton Rouge Magnet High School and sentance two would be that during high school he converted to Catholicism. And Baton Rouge Magnet High School is a public school. DanielZimmerman 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The statement "although he also offers testimony in Baptist and Pentecostal churches while on the campaign trail" is irrelevant to the article, appears to offer a contrast to something (his Catholicism?) for no reason, and ought to be removed. Apparently 68.252.225.233 (talk · contribs) needs to have it in there for some reason - care to share your thoughts, anonymous one? --Folic Acid 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think if you eliminated the word "although", it would eliminate the "negative tone" of the sentance while keeping a factually relevant event that was well covered in the media. DanielZimmerman 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second in Congressional history?

Not third? Guettarda 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congress.org ranking

I removed the congress.org comment because it was misleading when it spoke of "effectiveness". Jindal was downgraded because he is both running for another office and is in a minority party--not because of lack of bills introduced or other factors. -64.148.4.38 04:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Jindal's ranking is lower than half of the current Freshman Republicans. Wikipedia has a policy of notablity. And while I think notability is subjective and should be removed as a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, I believe that such a ranking is "notable" and should be included. DanielZimmerman 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darbash?

Someone placed Darbash as being Congressman Jindal's middle name. Then, someone else removed it because of someone being "malicious".

Can anyone find a reference to this being his actual middle name (i.e. one that doesn't point right back here)? I see no problem with including his full legal name. However, if that is not his middle name it obviously should not be included. DanielZimmerman 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public support for heathcare.

I dont know what "support for public healthcare" has to do with Congressman Jindal. No statements are made about when Louisiana had a 35% support of healthcare, when it rose to 12% below the national average or what the national average actually is. This is why I have deleted it twice. DanielZimmerman 23:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Representation of the 2005 Iraqi elections

In 2005, Jindal led other freshman Republican House members in dipping their fingers in purple die to celebrate the 2005 Iraqi national elections which resulted in the ousting of pro-US interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and led to the rise of fundamentalist Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali-Sistani, who reportedly had ties to Iran.

This is a POV view of the 2005 Iraqi elections. First of all, the figure who replaced Iyad Allawi was Ibrahim al-Jaafari. From the Ibrahim article: "he was picked in July 2003 as member of the U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council, and served as its first chairman and Iraq's first post-Saddam interim President for one month." Pointing out that Iyad Allawi was pro-US and pushed out implies his replacement was anti-US. And as for Sistani, though he gave his blessing to the ruling arty, he left politics no less than a year ago and exercised very little direct influence as it was.

I'm going to drop everything that follows the word "elections" and hyperlink the national elections so people can read the article for themselves. User:Umdunno 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jindal on Religon.

On my last edit to the 2007 election for Governor I added punctuation. I also changed "his religious views of Protestants" to "his views on Protestant religions." because that is a more acurate description of the actual words used in the ad. I also changed "The claims in the ad have been refuted by Jindal " to "The claims in the ad are disputed by Jindal". Refuted means "proved false". Jindal has not proved the claims false, he has just stated that the claims are false. DanielZimmerman 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

These ads have quickly been shown to be extremely scurrilous. See, for example: [2]. As a result, I don't think that the accusations have anywhere near enough credibility to be relevant to this article. However, the controversy over the airing of the ads is important enough that it should be mentioned in the article on the gubernatorial race. Moreover, this type of stuff is quite possibly defamatory, and as such- especially given its unsupported nature- violates WP:BLP Gabrielthursday 23:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Gabriel. For anyone with even a modest knowledge of the English language and elementary theology who has carefully read the article, the ads are grossly distorting what Jindal said. I'm inclined to agree with the (liberal) blog Crooked Timber which characterized the ads as "actively dishonest" and Jindal's writings as standard, even banal. And no, it's not accurate to call them his views on Protestantism either, because he was quoting Calvin on humanity. I'm not sure I can agree with Gabriel on the 'defamatory' bit, especially given that Jindal's a public figure in an election race. I add that I've a lot of respect for the months of work Daniel has put in here, but must respectfully differ with him on this point.Holmwood 07:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gabriel on the move of the section to the governors race section. Now, he did quote Calvin on humanity but he used that quote on humanity to explain why protestants are incorrect in their beliefs. That much is plain. Personally, I am wouldn't have run those ads. However, my personal opinion is irrelevent to wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 12:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jindal's name

This seems a bit of a controversy. Even the LDP which was the only major entity using his birth name, stopped doing so in January, because the controversy over them using it was detracting from their message. Given that he's been known since age 4 as Bobby Jindal, and published under that name, worked for years under that name, it seems puzzling that we'd refer to him as anything but. I've switched it to Bobby Jindal but added in the birth name and citations on the subject. Holmwood 07:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Should an encyclopedia go by someone's nickname that they go by? Or should an encyclopedia refer to the legally given name of someone who never legally changed that name? Look at Mike Foster's page. DanielZimmerman 12:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I debated this. What decided me in this case was the fact that he'd been repeatedly published under the name "Bobby Jindal". Given that this is simply a firstname rather than a surname, it seems reasonable. The example I looked at was Barack Obama. True, he is listed as Barack Hussein Obama, and then everywhere else referred to as Barack Obama, including in the picture caption. The fact that Jindal had been repeatedly published as "Bobby Jindal" swayed me, but also caused me to add in detail making it clear this was still his legal name. Personally, I can live with changing the very first reference of him back, and then leaving all other references as Bobby Jindal. Holmwood 21:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be reasonable. The current version says "Bobby Jindal (Born Piyush Jindal..." could give the reader the belief that his name is legally "Bobby" when it is not. I think we have reached a consensus on putting the name back to Piyush "Bobby" Jindal on the first entry and we should change it to the correct name to maintain this entry as encyclopedic. DanielZimmerman 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Sensible, agreed. Cheers. Holmwood 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
But I am confused;as the page reads that "Bobby" Jindal adapteed the nick name "Bobby" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asydwaters (talk • contribs) 09:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits.

Changed pronunciation to more appropriate pronunciation key gĭn'dl

Removed “support for public health” statement (yet again) because it has nothing to do with Jindal’s health record (and it especially has nothing to do with increased access to health care as the former editor has claimed). The sentance before it contains specific dates for the health rankings which make them applicable to Jindal's tenure. The sentance that was deleted has no specific dates so any claims would be original research.

Removed unreferenced statement about his lack of support for Louisiana State Police. Definitely not within wikipedia inclusion guidelines for many reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs) 13:41, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on time as Secretary of DHH

Jindal's reputation as Secretary is broadly positive. To selectively include one statistic, without a broader consideration of his tenure gives a decidedly biased viewpoint. I've thus removed the stat, as was done by an anonymous editor earlier. Gabrielthursday 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it really broadly positive? Or is that just opinion? DanielZimmerman 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say it's broadly positive, by any reasonable standards. He eliminated the deficit, moved them to surplus, and made some good progress in child health care. Overall, the service marginally declined relative to the rest of the US, but this was in a state that's never been higher than 48/50 in all the years that survey has been conducted, and has been at number 50 for many of those years (including prior to Jindal's tenure). Holmwood 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever gains he made tossed the baby out with the bathwater, since the health ranking as a whole dropped. How can that been seen as a positive? Political spin may be able to do it but policial spin has no place on wikipedia. Objective facts that are well sourced have a place on Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective Data Mining or accurate representation of relevant and verifiable facts?

"During those years and the year immediately following his leaving the department, Louisiana's nationwide health ranking fell from 48th to 50th" was removed fromt he article, even though it was properly sourced. I don't think this is "selective data mining", but perhaps we could discuss whether this fact should be included in the article or not. There was a second blurb that I had removed from the Jindal article because it was not attributed to the time that Bobby Jindal was the head of the Louisiana Department of Health. Ill leave the edit as it is currently until we can come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether this should be included. DanielZimmerman 14:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It is selective data mining. During his tenure, they did indeed fall one place -- from 48 to 49. That could be said to be relevant. Tossing in the fall the following year seems a stretch, especially since the fall from 48 to 49 happened in his first year. (If he's responsible for falls after he's out of office, then surely his predecessor is responsible for the initial drop). Moreover, the backdrop of a bankrupt system losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year is very important to note. That said, I'm fine with the removal of the whole thing. If we want it back, let's note the financial turnaround, and the fact that they dropped from 48 to 49 during his tenure. Holmwood 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we want the "financial turnaround" back we also have to not the closing of health clinics which, is noted in the article linked to, as a reason why Louisiana healthcare was so poor when he left. DanielZimmerman 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd add that I suspect that the difference between 48th and 50th is well within the statistical margin of error of whatever study was quoted. There was a recent piece on Jindal in the American Spectator that recounts how Jindal managed to get Congress to restructure its payments to Louisiana to prevent a budgetary collapse [3], which no doubt, helps to explain his reputation. Gabrielthursday 08:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I would trust the Spectator to give an unbiased account of Jindal's role in the Medicaid fix seeing as this is an article written during his campaign for governor and they seem quite the conservative rag. I mean, they claim the deficit was in the billions? I never heard that. I believe Jindal's own campaign page says that the deficit was 400 million, not billions (plural). DanielZimmerman 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the Spectator has an agenda, without a doubt. I actually hadn't heard of the incident until the gubernatorial election of aught-three. I gather the "billions" was not the actual deficit but rather the deficit that would have resulted had Louisiana had to comply with the new federal Medicare/Medicaid rules had federal funding not been restructured. Anyone know more? Gabrielthursday 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The Spectator a conservative "rag"? I'll agree it has an agenda, but would we describe The Nation (a similarly fringe publication that publishes some highly non-NPOV stuff) a socialist "rag"? (or, for American consumption, a liberal "rag"?). Indeed, for extremism, I don't think AS contributor Pat Buchanan can beat Nation contributor Leon Trotsky!
That said, the non-credibility of their "billion-dollar deficit" gives me pause for thought. It's my working assumption that this is typical journalistic confusion -- though it could be stupid spin -- between a projected cumulative deficit and a real operating deficit, which was, as Daniel notes, "only" $400m.
I agree it's appropriate to note the fiscal turnaround and the drop from 48 to 49 (while noting that LA has never been above 48). If you want to note clinic closures as well, then sure, let's also note the successful initiatives to improve children's health. Looking at this from well outside LA, the turnaround is striking; the decline from 48 to 49 doesn't seem to me to be statistically very significant. That said, critics are mentioning it, so fair enough; include it. However, to then start adding complaints about clinic closures is getting into details; best then to balance that by noting what positive details also resulted.
I personally believe that the turnaround should be mentioned, and I think it's appropriate to mention the decline from 48 to 49 during his tenure. If we want to mention more specific negatives, then let's also get into more specific positives. It's not about balancing one good point with one bad point as much as it is balancing an appropriate level of analysis and criticism.Holmwood 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
But if we are writing an encyclopedic article, then how can we both say the department was "turned around" while also citing that its national health rankings dropped? Seems counterintuitive at best. The problem with the term "turnaround" is POV. (Unless you wanted to word it in a way that says "dispite the claims of some that Jindal turned the department around, others point to the decrease in health rankings and the elimination of clinics as proof that Jindal's decisions hurt the department" (or something like that) DanielZimmerman 12:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have two points. First, the decline from 48 to 49 -- for a State that's never risen above 48 -- isn't that material. Second, it comes down to context. A Health Department on the brink of fiscal collapse, threatening to imperil other programs is indeed "turned around" if its deficit is wiped out. A company which makes mediocre products and is verging on bankruptcy is turned around even if its products don't improve but it is now making a profit.
In addition, your wording comes off as non neutral POV. "despite the claims of some"? Sheesh! With respect, it sounds like a DNC press release. And I'm Canadian -- I have no dog in this hunt as southerners say! Something more like "Jindal achieved a much-welcomed financial turnaround of the Department, changing a 400m deficit which imperiled other programs into a 200m surplus [citation]. Child vaccination rankings improved. [citation] However, the State's country-wide rankings continued to stagnate, slipping one place to 49 of 50 during Jindal's tenure [citation] and sliding to last in the nation in the year following his departure [citation].
I think that's fair. Absolutely the mediocrity of LA's health care -- before, during and after Jindal's tenure needs to be pointed out, including the relative slide during his tenure.Holmwood 11:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Holmwood: Your analysis of whether that fact is material is clearly your POV. As editors of an encyclopidia, it is not the job of us to post our personal opinions of the facts, it is just our job to point out the facts. I, of course, would argue that a healthcare system is not "turned around" when you eliminate the deficit if the healthcare given by that system gets worse. Your comparison of a public healthcare system that is not in existence to make a profit to a public company whose job it is to make a profit is clearly flawed. If Bobby Jindal did what he did in a public corporation then by all means he would be considered a genius. However, it is not the job of our government to run a profit. And while I would argue that, it is not my job to post my argument in the article. It is my job when editing this encyclopedia to present the facts. Fact: The budget was cut and the deficit was eliminated. Fact: The healthcare ranking dropped during his tenure. You claim that my wording sounds like a DNC press release but yours is no better than a RNC press release. "Jindal achieved a much-welcomed financial turnaround"? Sounds like it came off the desk of Karl Rove. I mean your own words "the mediocrity of LA's health care -- before, during and after Jindal's tenure" clearly show why it would be wrong to word the article in the way you described. DanielZimmerman 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demon possession article

An anonymous user (68.11.51.159) recently added information on an article written by Bobby Jindal while he was at Oxford allegedly discussing (I say 'allegedly' because I lack a subscription and can't find a free copy of the article to verify its content) a friend's possession by a demon. See the article here and the diff here.

It seems to me that this is unnecessary and possibly politically-motivated, and that the source is not reputable (see the NOR's mission statement here), but given that it appears to have been written by him and was subsequently published, the argument might also be made that it should be left in to show more about his character and history.

Since I didn't want to unilaterally delete it and risk a revert war, I thought I'd bring it up here and see if we can't reach a consensus. --jonny-mt 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Positions on "selected" issues and other nits.

The section "Positions on selected issues" looks like it could have been culled from The Nation or Mother Jones Magazine or The American Prospect. "Selected" indeed.

Katrina is not mentioned in this article. At all. This is odd because Jindal was personally involved in rescue efforts (sans PR stunt material such as a toy boat, camera crew, hair gel, and a plastic cup for bailing).

Republicans have sub headings of "Controversies," "Criticisms," and "Public Perceptions" (wherein acts of mind reading and cribbing from the The Guardian are performed) or their positions on issues are "Selected." Blanco gets blurbs prefixed with "Actions ..." How's this given that even Nagin couldn't escape the critical key taps of the wikinistas nor the lens of Mr. Lee?

Some authors of this entry obviously have an ax to grind and their blogs get cited in the Links section. Why is that?

Pete 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Offered testimony

What's 'offering testimony'? References to some christian practice, shouldn't themselves be phrased in jargon that only christians know. It sounds cozy. At the least, there should be a link to a wikipedia page where that bit of christian whatever-it-is is explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.74.149 (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NRA rating

I can't edit the article. Someone who can might want to add that in addition to his A rating by Gun Owners of America, Jindal has an A+ rating from the NRA, which officially endorsed him for governor. --M-K, 23 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.177.248 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-white?

Isn't most Indians white? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.132.203 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Indian-Americans are considered White. However, I'm wondering about "first non-white governor since Reconstruction". I can't find evidence of one in Louisiana BEFORE Reconstruction, either. Am I missing somebody? I think we should change this to read "first non-white governor in state history". - 199.82.243.71 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
sorry, that was me, forgot to log in. - Syberghost 13:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Newt says[4]:

Not only will Jindal become the nation's youngest governor, but he will be the first non-white governor to hold the state's post since P.B.S. Pinchback, an African-American Republican who served as acting governor of the state during the 35-day period after the state legislature impeached Gov. Henry Clay Warmoth in 1872.

BillMcGonigle 19:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the one who posted the question actually serious? I'm doubting that because: 1) Indians, who rightfully consider themselves Asian, are most clearly brown in skin color, albeit to varying degrees, and 2) The way the question is phrased. Sounds like the question-poser is posing as a stereotypical redneck. At least I hope it wasn't a serious question! BobCubTAC (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP adress traces to Atlanta, Georgia. Tarcus (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Asian isn't always considered a race. That's a fairly recent category. Since you bring up skin color, what are middle easterners?
Something like non-caucasian or non-european might be more clear to some people who aren't as hip to the latest fashionable nomenclature. 71.128.195.213 (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Technically, Asian Indians are considered to be part of the Caucasian race. However, because of their skin color, they were not considered to be white by the British Empire, and generally are considered to be non-white in American culture today. They also are NOT considered to be Arab or Middle Easterner. Sf46 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

90% of the time I use Wikipedia for articles on science, math, and cs. A few days ago I came here to find out more about Bobby Jindal.

Since when are campaign commercials, political press releases, and dedicated hit piece blogs valid references for an encyclopedia? Shouldn't only verifiable facts from true primary or secondary sources and main stream media sites (AP, Reuters, etc) be cited?

Pete 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out the sections you have an issue with and the problems with the sources to clarify the issues that you have with the Bobby Jindal article? DanielZimmerman 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically, yes, he would be White. However, under the US definition of race, he would be Asian (racial classification has shifted back and forth for Indian-Americans, and I'm sure it's likely the same will happen with Arabs) 67.173.195.17 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not first Indian American Governor, but the first elected Indian American Governor.

"[The distinction of first Indian American Governor] goes to New Jersey's transportation commissioner, Kris Kolluri, who held the post for 24 hours last year when his boss was out of town." Source DanielZimmerman 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your source leads nowhere. Check that out. ;^) -- OtherAJ (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
OOPS! New sourceDanielZimmerman (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
According to that source, you are absolutely correct. Nice catch. -- OtherAJ (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage of the Louisiana Election is flawed

A lot of implied statements are being made with the comparisons of the Jindal primary win and Jindal's loss in 2003. For example, stating that Jindal got a plurality in certain parishes implies that he "won" those parishes when in reallity a majority of those parishes voted for someone else. I think there is a better way to put it without sounding like a Republican pundit. DanielZimmerman 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? Maybe it's just because I'm a math major, but the distinction between 'plurality' and 'majority' is pretty clear to me. What alternative wording would you suggest? Borisblue 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Some people use the term 'relative majority' instead of plurality- it's a slightly more obscure term, but does that sound more neutral?Borisblue 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article states "Jindal's 54 percent of the vote was greater than that received by outgoing Governor". And while 54% > 52%, Jindal actually got less votes than Blanco did when she won (699,672 < 731,358). So just as someone can type that Jindal got a "greater" vote than Blanco, I can also say that he got less votes than Blanco. I also have heard people use the 60/64 parish comment to imply some sort of mandate. In reallity, those parishes that he got a plurality in.... that means that the majority of those parishes did not vote for him. And what was the population of those parishes where he did not come in 1st? And is analyzing the votes of each parish really relevant to an encyclopedic entry? It is similar to the silly graphic showing 75% of the counties voted for Bush (when that graphic treated densely populated Democratic areas the same as thinly populated republican areas). There are historic things that took place in this election. A person who is a minority being governor of Louisiana since reconstruction, the first elected Indian-American governor, the fact that he was not the incumbant and he won in the primary (and the fact that goes along with that.... I think he is the only one to do that.... but it could be the only one in a while). I would suggest eliminating the blurb about parishes, since the overall vote is what matters and not the parish by parish vote. I would also eliminate the blurb about him getting a greater percentage of votes. DanielZimmerman 20:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Jindal "tapping" leadership positions.

Several things about this section. Should it be brought up that Bobby Jindal said that he would not get involved in the leadership positions and then later did? Also, did he actually select the people? Or did he just come out in support of the people who had the votes already? DanielZimmerman 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pro-life" is a POV term

I strongly feel that the term "pro-life" as used in this article is majorly POV and must be changed. In the "Positions on selected issues" section, it states, "...Blanco, who is also pro-life..." Because I recognize that my own preferential term, "anti-choice," is also POV, I move that the term "pro-life" be changed to "opposed to abortion." Sound fair? BobCubTAC (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC

No. "Pro-life" is a direct link to an article which discusses the term. No need to pipe it to something else less descriptive. - BillCJ (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


How about "anti-death"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.106.4 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are the generally accepted terms used in the abortion debate. "Anti-choice" or "Anti-life" would be terms that no one would understand. Perhaps the wording could be changed to a quote from Bobby Jindal or some of his campaign material where he identifies himself as "pro-life". At that point it's no longer a POV issue, because it's then a quote. Sf46 (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inauguration

Folks, please.
According to LPB, they are covering the inauguration live on January 14th.
http://www.lpb.org/programs/swi/

INAUGURATION 2008 - Louisiana Public Broadcasting will air live coverage of the inauguration of Governor Bobby Jindal on Monday, January 14. Louisiana: The State We're In Managing Editor Robyn Ekings, Producer Charlie Whinham and LPB President/CEO Beth Courtney will anchor the coverage from the State Capitol in Downtown Baton Rouge. In addition to the Governor, the other statewide elected officials and the Legislature will be sworn in at the event. Starts at 11:00 AM CST

Unless someone has good reason to explain why Saturday the 12th is the date instead of Monday the 14th, please don't change the date again. And if you do have a good reason, please leave it here for all of us. Thanks.

--12.152.105.2 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite certain that it was on a Monday. I remember watching the election coverage on a weekday, not a weekend. Thanks. -- OtherAJ (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rush

I removed the section on Limbaugh's remarks as unnoteworthy and POV. Another editor put it back. I intend to remove it again and persist until it stays gone. Imagine if someone made a section in this article about something negative some radio host said about Jindal. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I intend to remove it again and persist until it stays gone. - That's called edit warring, which is against policy, and it will not be tolerated.
For the record, I didn't add the original comments, but only cleaned it up when someone else modified what Limbaugh actually said, and added the original quote to prevent further modifications. Stating rm unnoteworthy laudatory comment from radio host, POV is in itself POV. All that has been done here is to report what Limbaugh actually said, which is noteworhty whether you agree with the "praise" or not. Whether or not it should be reported is an issue of notablility, not POV. You need to focus your attention on gaining a consensus that it is non-notable, not in edit warring. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I just read that section. The wording on it seems neutral POV to me. I will agree, though that the notablilty may be questionable. I think that it needs to be developed a little further to establish notability. Milkbreath, if you want it gone, hang one of those notability tags on it, and then delete it after a reasonable time if someone hasn't added more to the Limbaugh section to make it a little more notable. Sf46 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I expected grim opposition from the supporters of a Louisiana governor. I read the book, you know. (insert smiley) I've never been in an edit war, don't know what one is. I was merely making it clear to the person who reverted my removal that promotional political material such as this section will not be tolerated in an open encyclopedia, and that his casual reversion will be met with a determined removal. And the only reason I'm in this at all is that I copyedited the article a while ago at random.

I'm not saying that the wording is POV but that the inclusion of laudatory empty conjecture on the part of a radio talk show host is POV. Again, imagine someone created a section whose only reason for being here was to say that some talk show host had called Jindal the next Hitler? Would that be OK? I think not. I like Sf's suggestion about the tag, except that I would feel disingenuous doing that, because a random comment from a radio, well, blowhard, will never be notable no matter how you word it, unless it's in an article called Amazing pointless things RL said. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, almost everything Limbaugh has said lately in the presidential race, especially in about McCain, has been the subject of a lot of media coverage. Limbaugh is a big force in the Conservative movement, and much has been made in the media of his continued opposition to McCain, and lack of support of McCain's nomination. That is the context of his comments, and what makes it more than just random, pointless comments. To satisfy WP:N:WP's Notability requirements, I'd recommend checking the news reports to see if his comments have been reported, esp in Louisiana. If someone else responded to the comments, those those could be reported too. However, if it was ignored completely by the media (not likely, but possible), then there is no established notability for the comments, and it should be removed. Those who know how to read edit summaries in the beginning will note that I did question whether this needed to be here or not, and still do - I'm m trying to give it a fair chance to be proven. Also, if there's a consesnus to do this, I would support removing the comments for now, pending addressing the notability issue. - BillCJ (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised to find my deletion was controversial. The section seems to me to be blatant boosterism. I have therefore been forced to think about it, a painful and often dangerous process, and I can see how a section called something like "Media reaction" could include the present content if it also included negative reaction and covered a representative range of sources. The man obviously isn't a middle-of-the-road, run-of-the-mill nonentity, so such a section would be appropriate. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Milkbreath, that Media reaction section might be a good idea. The section from Rush Limbaugh could be the beginning part of it, and any other major press coverage could also be put there. Since this Governor is very new in office (less than a month), that section will probably steadily expand as his term goes on. Sf46 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh's comments are clearly notable. They were discussed extensively in todays Washington Times. These comments are also being discussed in the Louisiana Press and in India. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Frjohnwhiteford, according to a note on his talk page, prefers that comments about his edits appear on the talk page of the edit in question. So, Frjohn, I found your removal of the POV tag astonishingly uncooperative and disrespectful of the opinions of others, who now have been deprived of the opportunity to weigh in on an issue in dispute. I hope you can help me to see your action in a more favorable light. I'm kind of new to this editing conflict business, so please excuse any seeming heavy-handedness on my part and interpret it as my clumsy attempts to state my position clearly. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It was wrong to remove the "neutrality" tag before we had a chance to hear from someone disinterested besides myself. I think that that removal signals the end of this phase of conflict resolution. Upon futher consideration, I've concluded that the section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" is patent cyber-stumping, and I will do whatever I can to see it gone. I see this as an interesting test of the power of an entity such as Wikipedia to resist having itself used by special interests. I'm submitting a Request for Comment. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You can dispute the wording or inclusion of this section all you want, but there is nothing contrary to WP:NPOV in the section as it stands. If you can can convince enough people to the contrary, no doubt you will be successful in getting removed... though so far, there does not seem to be a groundswell of support. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" neutrality

Is article section "Potential Vice Presidential Nomination" POV by mere inclusion? --Milkbreath (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See above under "Rush". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll be the first to speak up and say what I said above. The section about Rush Limbaugh seems to me to have neutral wording and context. I personally don't see this Governor dropping his new office to accept a vice-presidential nomination. I'll also say again that perhaps a press comments section should replace it, with the Limbaugh info left in there, and any other media coverage whether praising or condemning Jindal out in there (past or future). Sf46 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The section is fine. It's short, so there's not undue weight. It's appropriately sourced to both Rush and the Washington Times. There is nothing that insinuates whether Jindal would/would not make a good VP. Honestly, I agree with Sf46 that it's unlikely he'd accept the spot. Furthermore, I doubt he'd be offered it either.Ngchen (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But there is no "potential vice presidential nomination". There is only an "offhand suggestion" by a talk show person. The press coverage even of that is being misrepresented here. The Times of India pokes fun, here. How about we add to the section what the Times quotes from Andy the Redneck, "I've been telling y'all that my buddy Bobby is going places. If being Governor of Louisiana doesn't ruin the boy, we're likely to see him on the national stage in 4 or 8 years. Y'all keep a sharp eye on the boy". --Milkbreath (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
By all means, quote Andy the Redneck, or DroopPuppy the Ghetto thug, or Gino the New Yawker (just trying to spread the offensive sterotypes around a bit) all you want, assuming they're are notable persons, and quoted in the Times-Picayune, the Washington Times, and the Times of India. Shows what I know - I never heard of the blogger Andy the Redneck! But is McCain frothing at the mouth over everthing Andy says? Probably not.- BillCJ (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When the subject of the article is being discussed in the mainstream press, and note is made of it here, there is no POV violation, as long as reliable sources are cited in a neutral way. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest with frequent editor of page

I'm not sure if this is the proper forum to discuss this, however I came across this website (http://www.jindalisbad.com/) and it turns out DanielZimmerman is the author of it. This seems to me to be a conflict of interests that should be discouraged in an objective encyclopedia.Sluhser589 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am "in the author of it"? What does that mean? Yes, I frequently post to Jindalisbad.com, a site where several people share their points of view on Bobby Jindal. However, when I post to wikipedia, I try my absolute best to do so using wikipedia guidelines, to keep the article as encyclopedic as possible, and to keep my POV out if the article. Read the talk page you just posted to and you will see the discussions that I have had pertaining to the article and my desire to keep it encyclopedic. I specifically point you to where I stated "However, my personal opinion is irrelevent to wikipedia." earlier on this page. I also stated to another user, "Your analysis of whether that fact is material is clearly your POV. As editors of an encyclopidia, it is not the job of us to post our personal opinions of the facts, it is just our job to point out the facts." Do you have any specific examples of where the article currently has POV violations that came from me? Or do you just not like the fact that someone who is knowledgeable on Bobby Jindal is also someone who is politically opposed to him? Do you suggest that only people who support Jindal post to his page? Because if you would argue that people who disagree with Jindal would put unencyclopedic content on the page, the same logic would dictate that if only people who support him are allowed to post, that the content could also be unencyclopedic. The reallity is that there are both people who support and oppose Jindal politically who are able to leave their feelings at the door and place encyclopedic content on the Bobby Jindal wikipedia page and there are those (on both sides) who post their POV and not facts (as can be seen with some recent edits to the Jindal page). DanielZimmerman (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems pretty obvious that "in the author of it" was supposed to be "is the author of it", a simple typo. But admitting that would have been less fun. - BillCJ (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't get that when I read it initially. I see that now. Ok, so to clarify, I have authored many blog entries on Jindalisbad.com but I am not the creator/owner/etc of the site (as some people like to claim I am). Anyway, do you think that slusher is correct and that someone who is openly opposed to Bobby Jindal's political stances should not edit his wikipedia page? Or should all people who are willing to be objective and who want to create a well written article be able to contribute (despite their political beliefs)? DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Let Daniel Zimmerman post. If he goes against WP guidelines only then should the matter be looked at. As wiki editors, we also must assume good faith and based on his statements saying he will follow procedures and guidelines I am going to take his word for it. I just ask Daniel be careful when posting and keep this conscious. Arnabdas (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


For those who may not know, Daniel Zimmerman isn't merely a guy who contributes to an anti-Jindal blog. Zimmerman ran against Bobby Jindal and 4 others in the 2004 LA01 House race. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana's_1st_congressional_district#2004
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/LA/H/01/
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/pre/LA/H/01/150711/frameset.exclude.html
I don't know if losing candidates typically take such an interest in the Wiki pages of those who defeat them, but I do think more disclosure on this page is in order - and frankly, it should have been made by Zimmerman himself before making his edits. Yasha1969 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That is an important note of concern. However, I still stand by my opinion that he should be able to edit the article as long as he follows proper wikipedia policies, procedures and guidelines. The conflict of interest situation really would matter only if he was mediating the situation or along those lines IMO. If we have problems with edits, we can always open up mediation cabals. Arnabdas (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
While it is obvious that this editor has an anti-Jindal bias, I don't see a problem with him editing the article as long as the contributions remain non-biased. Sf46 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Arnabdas, Wiki guidelines also recommend that possibly conflicted editors consider (a) avoiding COI topics or at least (b) disclosing an interest. IMO being a political opponent in a federal election is (easily) enough to merit such a disclosure. Would you agree? I have not claimed Zimmerman shouldn't be allowed to edit this article, but would like Zimmerman to be more forthcoming (even after the fact!), and not just pretend to be a generic editor in search of encyclopedic accuracy. I would also note that Zimmerman's claim that he is merely one of the contributors to that anti-Jindal website is not true at this time: He claimed that "several people share their points [sic] of view," yet he has written 48 of the last 50 entries there, and the other two are unsigned. (Sorry, this was Yasha1969, not signed in) 98.201.137.57 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like 90% of editors on wikipedia's political articles are obsessed with bashing conservative figures. I don't see how this guy is special, I'd give him credit for being forthright about who he is.

But on his most recent edit about Jindal not being in the New Orleans category: For some reason I thought Jindal's permanent home was Metairie. That not true? 71.128.195.213 (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Bobby is originally from Baton Rouge. He did have a home in Metairie that he occupied while he was in Congress, but I'm fairly certain that I read in the Baton Rouge newspaper that he has sold that home, and now has a home (besides the Governor's Mansion) in Baton Rouge (possibly in the Country Club of LA). Sf46 (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Jindal did not have a home in Metairie. He owned a home in Kenner Louisiana that he purchased before running for the LA01 congressional seat in 2004. I would argue that Jindal does not belong in in a category about New Orleaneans. However, if his representing a district for 3 years that covers some of New Orleans is enough of an association then so be it. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm not the New Orleaniest person around, but I'm not convinced that precludes him. He lived in Metairie for awhile and ultimately represented part of the GNO area in congress. The category says: New Orleanians are people from New Orleans, Louisiana, the New Orleans metropolitan area, or particularly noted for their associations with that city. 71.128.195.213 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't preclude him. Most politicians have people scanning and editing material on the web. It's kind of sad that he's doing it himself, but that doesn't make it against the rules. It was sneaky, though, doing this with no one knowing his political involvement all the while. One thing to point out is that his interests are clearly not with providing any useful information on Bobby Jindal. I would bet that his edits aren't exactly concerned with the innocuous aspects of Jindal's life and career. I'll have to check, but I'd bet the edits are concerned with the more "negative" aspects of Mr. Jindal's life. But, hey, if he can come up with reasonable edits that cite sources and do not comprise a wider attack against Jindal that unnecessarily weigh down the article, he should feel free to continue doing so. But, be advised, Mr. Zimmerman, you may not turn this article into a negative campaign ad or use any part of this article to that end. ask123 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky? I think not. Sneaky would have been me not using my own name to edit the Bobby Jindal page. I was absolutely up front by editing the page using my own name. My goal for the entire time has been to help create and maintain a factual article about someone that I have knowledge about. I have no reason to be negatigve about Jindal on his encyclopedic page. I have plenty of other outlets that I can use if I wish to be critical of Jindal. I have also removed comments that seemed to be negative attacks against Jindal like this one. If you think I have acted in bad faith, report it to a moderator. Otherwise, do not warn me away from activities that I have no intention of participating in. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to VP section (Washington Post article on Jindal VP choice)

I expanded the reason why the youth of McCains running mate would be important (if such information should be included in the article to begin with)

I am concerned about the encyclopedic value of some of the information added. First of all, the article states the opinion of someone that states ""I don't think that's very important this time," (refering to the idea that Jindal being from a southern state could help Jindal be the VP choice). So i had to remove the "he is a governor of a southern state" portion of the last edit as being a reason why he could be picked by McCain.

The main question I have is this. Is including the speculation of every pundit/reporter/blogger/etc something that is encyclopedic? I would agree that Rush Limbaugh suggesting Jindal as a choice and stating he is the next "Ronald Reagan" may be an important enough of a statement to be included in the article. Perhaps the statements by Pat Toomey (president of the club for growth) would be appropriate as well... howevere Toomey's coment seems to contradict the claim made by the previous editor of the article. Now, are the opinions of Joseph Curl relevant enough for inclusion? The youth argument is one that seems to be made by Curl and not by anyone Curl is referencing. It seems to be his opinion and not a fact. And while it is a fact that Curl said it, does that merit inclusion in the article? I await the opinions of others. DanielZimmerman (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who initially expanded the section to include the sentence you rephrased, and I fully support your changes. I recognize the danger in simply citing one source as the be-all and end-all of his merits, but before this the article just said he was being considered as a candidate. And that was it. I thought the extra sentence shed at least a little bit of light as to why he was being considered. please be bold and make whatever changes you think are best for the article. --YbborTalk 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Balancing Healthcare

The healthcare statement of turning a deficit into a surplus is factual. However, it also unbalances the article by ignoring the criticisms of those cuts. So I added a verifiable statement presented in a major publicaction by a "notable" organization who did not view the cuts that caused the surplus in a positive light. See Space and Balance. -- DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for LouisianaConservative.com deletions

After reading Wikipedia:External_links I came to the conclusion that the article linked two was problematic for many reasons. One problem was that it linked to the article three times. There is no reason to link to the article three times other than to spam the page. One link to the first page would suffice if linking to the article was valid for an encyclopedic entry. Readers are fully capable of clicking a link to turn to the next page if needed. Another problem was the entry that was linked to is not even attributed to a specific person to verify the credibility of the statements made in the article. Finally, the site is basically a large blog and according to the External Link guidelines, blogs should not be linked to. I wrongly linked to another blog previously and that link was rightly removed. And note, this was not done because I disagree with the content (as I am sure some might claim) in the article removed. I also disagree with the content on the RedState article that is linked to from the Bobby Jindal wikipedia page as well. However, the article is attributed to an actual person and not an anonymous blog id and can be placed in the external links category. One thing I would suggest is that we balance the links to show all sides and not just link to conservative points of view. This would make the article more complete. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stem cell research

I edited the wording regarding his opinion on embryonic stem cell research. The previous wording (especially the use of the words "experimentation" and "destruction") seemed biased against the topic of discussion, so I changed it to remove any bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshc99 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Position on abortion.

Someone deleted some vital information on Bobby Jindal's position on abortion. I have reverted that information, and I also fixed some of the wording to place his votes as a Congressman in the past tense. If someone feels that his feeling that procedures that would terminate a pregnancy (medical definition of abortion) that do not specifically target the embryo/fetus (because of the double effect) are not morally equivalent to abortions on demand where the intent is clearly to terminate the pregnancy, should not be included in the article, lets discuss that here first. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted new well-sourced material, because there was really no way to access "Politics with a Punch: AM 690, January 2004". See WP:Verifiability.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
some of your changes seem to be off, let's discuss. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 campaign for Governor needs to be expanded

The article suggests that there's no simple explanation for Jindal's 2003 runoff loss. That may be the case, but when making such a suggestion, blatantly obvious possible explanations should be addressed. In this case, the obvious explanation is that the Democrats held the upper hand throughout, and Jindal's initial first place finish was an anomaly due to the fact that almost 58% of the vote was split among four Democrats.

I'm not knowledgeable about any of these candidates, so I don't know who Ieyoub, Leach, and Ewing (or for that matter, Downer) endorsed. If they did endorse their party's candidate, that should be noted, and if they did not, that also should be noted. 24.184.97.102 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that the Democrats just held the upper hand throughout. However, a verifiable source would have to state that in order for it to be included in the article. Endorsements of Blanco by the other Democrats may be something that could be included though. DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] footnote 8 does not support the point

The footnoted article says: "In high school, he gave up Hinduism and became a Christian; and during his first year at Brown University, he was baptized as a Roman Catholic."

The artilce says he became a Catholic in high School: "Jindal was a Hindu but converted to Catholicism in high school." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.216.3 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems plausible that he became a Catholic in high school, but didn't become fully baptized until his 1st year of college. No big deal. Sf46 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Wikipedia Hatchet Job

Funny how this article is quick to jump on his pro-life positions (which I don't personally agree with), yet Barack Obama's stance against a ban on partial birth abortion in non-emergencies isn't mentioned anywhere in his article. This is just another groupthink article on a conservative that is designed to troll readers. 98.218.141.145 (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quote supposedly from a reference

The article has a quote:

When asked if he would accept an offer of the vice presidential nomination from McCain, Jindal jokingly stated "Only if he speaks at my high school reunion in August".

This references this CNN transcript which makes no reference to this quote. If Gov. Jindal did say this, we need to get the correct reference for it. --rogerd (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this quote since it is not referenced. --rogerd (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Children names in the personal section explanation

A little confusing text: "In 1997, Jindal married Supriya Jolly (born 1972). The couple has three children: Selia Elizabeth, Shaan Robert, and Slade Ryan. Contrary to Indian tradition, their names do not carry the father's ethnic title 'Jindal'." The tradition of giving the father's last name to his children is not a specific "Indian" tradition. Indeed, this tradition is one that most cultures and ethnicities follow. I fear that the aim of the sentence is semi-biased in demonstrating that Mr. Jindal is not a traditional Indian, which, while possibly true, is not shown by his act of not using his paternal name to be passed down to this children. (Paradigm25 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)paradigm25)

[edit] Picayune

This Wikipedia article says: "Jindal has stated that he is '100 percent against abortion, no exceptions.'" But that's not an accurate quote.

The cited reference is a blog titled “Catholics in the Public Square”. The blog says: “On September 21, 2003, The Times-Picayune profiled the views of Louisiana's gubernatorial candidates on a host of issues life and family-related issues from abortion to sex education. On abortion, Jindal told the paper, ‘I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.’” Again, that's not an accurate quote.

On September 20, 2003, the Times Picayune ran an article titled “Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”. Here’s an excerpt: “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”

So, the quote from the blog is incorrect, and incomplete. We’re not supposed to use blogs in footnotes at Wikipedia anyway, so I’ll replace it with a cite to the actual Times-Picayune article.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the times picayune is "I am 100 percent anti-abortion with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.". The article is cited in the Who is Bobby Jindal article. I do not see where the T-P says "100% pro-life" but we can reference a link where the T-P cites him as saying "I am 100% anti-abortion". I have referenced this in the past and in the past these quotes (ignoring for now the AM690 one) were well sourced and referenced. I do not see the removal of information as being appropriate just because a link goes stale. If the link at one time provided the necessary information, then that reference should be valid for future information.
It is not that we are not supposed to use blogs as footnotes. It is that we are not supposed to use blogs as a the source of the information. However, if the blog references a "reliable" media source then I would argue that there is no problem with using the information cited from that media source. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is another media source for the "anti-abortion" quote (and not pro-life). "He's also fervently opposed to abortion rights - telling Louisiana's Times-Picayune "I am 100 per cent against abortion with no exceptions." Has Bobby Jindal got the right stuff? DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This Wikipedia article presently has a footnote that links directly to the pertinent Times-Picayune article. Have you looked at the T-P article?

“Candidates for governor answer questions about social issues”, Times Picayune (2003-09-20): “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.”

You have found some sources that have misquoted the Times-Picayune.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When I click on your link, I see no reference to Jindal's statement. Is it under the paid access? The Gambit clearly states it here: "For example, he is anti-abortion -- with no exceptions". So there you go, a reliable article stating that he is anti-abortion with no exceptions. Would you be ok with a rewording of the first sentance that states: "Jindal is pro-life and is against abortion with no exceptions" DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's under the paid access. The quote is clear as day. “Q: Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe an abortion should be allowed?....JINDAL: I am 100 percent pro-life with no exceptions. I believe all life is precious.” People have misquoted it, and created an echo chamber. The Gambit opinion commentary does not touch on the issue of the life of the mother, so I would be opposed to using that opinion commentary in an effort to falsely accuse Jindal of wanting to let women die. He has explicitly said that notion is "ridiculous", though you deleted that quote from this article.[5] You're certainly entitled to say anything you want at your web site,[6] but I urge you to please help us strive for neutrality here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
First and foremost, I would never make the assertion that Jindal "wants" to let women die. I may feel that his policies would let a woman die, but I do not believe that this would be his "desire". I am also not trying to insert any text into Bobby Jindal's wikipedia article that would mention the death of women as a result of his positions. So now that we have gotten that out of the way...
The quote can hardly be "clear as day" if it is only available to those who choose to pay for the access. I have to take your word on it. And since you are unwilling to take my word on the AM 690 reference (even though no other wikipedia author who has touched this article has had a problem with that reference) and you are also making assumptions of bad faith about me as a wikipedia author, why should I take yours?
The gambit article states "no exceptions" so it does not need to tourch on the issue of the life of the mother, as no exceptions means just that. No exceptions. My suggestion to reword the article was not to "falsely accuse Jindal of wanting to let women die" as you have incorrectly stated. My suggestion to reword was on a desire to compromise with a fellow wikipedia author on the wording of a particular passage in order to get the best article possible. I have done this previously with other authors on this very article. I would suggest that you read up and look at my discussion with Holmwood about Jindals Name to see an example where a sensible agreement about a sensitive subject was reached by two individuals who probably are politically opposite but yet found a consensus and a common ground on how the article should be written in order to be considered neutral and encyclopedic.
Again, Jindalisbad.com is not "my website". It is a website on which I have the authority to post blogs but it does not belong to me. If you MUST know, my website is www.lj4a.com. And I am well aware that I am free to put any commentary I wish on MY site and on jindalisbad.com. I cannot help the fact that I know a lot about Bobby Jindal, that I have followed his political career, and that I am politically opposed to him. However, your assumption of bad faith on my part is unacceptable. While I am not the perfect editor and have made a mistake or two in my day, I have strived to make sure that this article follows wikipedia guidelines, is of neutral tone, and is encyclopedic in nature. Wikipedia is not my soapbox, nor do I need it to be. And if you, again, read the rest of this talk page you will clearly see that I have made edits (like removing an unreferenced statement that Jindal did not support the Louisiana State Police) that were put in here by people with agendas and anti-jindal bias who where unwilling to leave their bias at the door when editing this page. I am more than willing to leave my bias at the door and help others who do the same to edit this page and make it the very best it can be. Are you willing to help me do this? Or are you going to continue to assume bad faith on my part by questioning my willingness to be neutral and by claiming things about my intent here that are plainly false? DanielZimmerman (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Picayune article costs $3.95. That's less than the cost of a taxi ride to your local library, where you can also find the article for free. Wikipedia quotes sources all the time that are not freely available online, so this Picayune article is a perfectly acceptable source. In contrast, Wikipedia does not want sources that are unverifiable, such as the AM690 source. See WP:Verifiability.
I'm not sure which comment of mine includes an assumption of bad faith. I did not mean to suggest that you're editing in bad faith. You deleted a quote from this article, in which Jindal explicitly denied that he "will" let women die.[7] You apparently "feel that his policies would let a woman die" even though he has explicitly denied it, and you want this article to say that his policies will let women die even though he has never said or implied that, as far as I can tell. Your style of editing is not necessarily in bad faith; some Wikipedia editors simply aren't aware that NPOV is a critical feature of Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware that NPOV is a critical feature of Wikipedia. No need to remind me of this.
Your encouragement to strive for neutrallity after saying I can say what I want on off wikipedia sites is an assumption of bad faith because you are assuming that I am not striving for neutrallity. You also claimed that my desire in adding the wording from the gambit linke was "an effort to falsely accuse Jindal of wanting to let women die." I have no desire to accuse Jindal of anything on the Wikipedia page. The only desire here is to write the best encyclopedic article possible.
Now, on to Jindals so called explicit denial that he would not let women die. He didn't say "i wont let a single woman die if her pregnancy threatens her life". Let's look at the citation in its entirety, shall we?
"He has also clarified that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child, saying "The Democratic Party is trying to insinuate that I will let women die, and that's ridiculous." "He said he does not condemn medical procedures aimed at saving the life of the mother that result indirectly in the loss of the unborn child as a secondary effect." "
Clearly he doesn't condemn a salpingectomy, as the loss of the embryo would be a secondary effect. So that is an example where Jindal would not let the woman die. However, if a procedure caused the loss of the unborn child as a primary effect, Jindal would be opposed to the procedure and, if Jindal had is way, a woman would be let to die.
But I do not want to put into the article any possible repercussion of his policy stances. To do so would be an attempt to predict the future and would be unecyclopedic and violate NPOV, NOR and other wikipedia policies and guidelines.
So while Jindal may feel the comments by the Democratic party are ridiculous, the quote from the source you provided only states that he supports procedures that abort a pregnancy as a secondary effect.
And let me be clear, one more time, on this claim of yours that is false: "and you want this article to say that his policies will let women die even though he has never said or implied that" No! I do not want this article to say that "Bobby Jindal will let women die". I want the article to say what his stance on abortion is and that stance, as shown in MANY reliable and verifiable sources, is that he is pro-life and against all procedures that result in an abortion as a primary effect without exception. We may even include, by using your source , that he would be supportive of any procedure to save a womans life where an abortion of the pregnancy would be a secondary effect.. since that is the clarification he gave to your source. DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life, you think Jindal would want to criminalize cutting the umbilical cord and subsequently removing the dead fetus? The fetal death would be secondary, right?
If a woman's life is in danger, then the death of the fetus could always be completely secondary. At least, that seems to be Jindal's understanding, or else he would not have said it's ridiculous that he "will let women die."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(reindenting) You are not interpreting Jindal's view on abortion correctly. The link ONLY states that he is supportive of procedures that cause the termination of the pregnancy indirectly. It clarifies the direct quote (about the ridiculousness of the Democratic party for making an accusation that he would let women die) by saying the circumstances where he would allow a woman to protect her life. Those circumstances are where the termination of the pregnancy is indirect. Again, I will explain this one more time to you. If a woman has cancer of the uterus, normal treatment of that cancer would include chemotherapy or removal of the uterus. IF a pregnant woman got cancer of the uterus and was treated as a normal patient with cancer of the uterus would be treated, it would cause a termination of the pregnancy. However, that termination of the pregnancy would be indirect. Jindal is not opposed to a woman with cancer to seek out normal cancer treatment, even if that treatment would result in an abortion of the pregnancy. Now, on the other hand, if a pregnant woman had some condition (lets call it condition X) and the treatment of condition X is an abortion (i.e. the doctor has to induce or otherwise cause an abortion directly) then Jindal WOULD be opposed to that (because as the article YOU cited states, Jindal is not opposed to INDIRECT abortions, not abortions). The fetal death here would be PRIMARY, not secondary. Now, if you feel that the direct quote from Jindal followed by the paraphrase only discussing indirect abortions are contradictory then perhaps we need to do as I suggested below and reject your source as a reliable source if it is providing contradictory material. However, if you accept the idea that the statement of "He said he does not condemn medical procedures aimed at saving the life of the mother that result indirectly in the loss of the unborn child as a secondary effect" is a clarification of his direct quote, showing the circumstances that he would not allow a woman to die, then the source could still be a reliable source and absolutely backs up my statements about Jindal and his view on abortion. I am tempted to just remove the portion on abortion for now, until we can reach a consensus. However, I will not do so until i hear from others. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subhaschandra Amrit?

Is this sourced anywhere? DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it sourced anywhere, so I removed it. Also got rid of dead link in first footnote.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

God Bless Google - [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.197.208 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I contacted the author of that article. He wrote back, and said, "Yes, I saw his name on Wikipedia."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, that's just straight up vandalism, as far as I can tell. The one source site didn't mention that name at all, and the other was from an editorial using that name. Neither seems to be a reliable source. Sf46 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What is worse is that it seems other sites are starting to use Wikipedia as a source and are writing stories claiming that this is his middle name as well. Which they will then be able to say "look, a site stating his name!". I see this as becoming very annoying. DanielZimmerman (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

This edit seems to be introducing original research. It attributes to Jindal a:

definition of abortion [that] is similar to the American Life League (using the double effect to justify certain procedures) and differs from the definition used in the medical community. This definition only includes procedures that target the embryo or fetus and excludes procedures, such as a salpingectomy, that do not target the embryo specifically but still terminate the pregnancy as a side effect (that would medically still be considered to be an abortion).

But no cite is provided to any source that mentions Jindal, and Jindal never said anything about "salpingectomy", nor anything about wanting to define abortion differently from how anyone else defines it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove this material, if there is no objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There is objection. I never suggested that the scalpingectomy was attributed to a quote by Jindal. I clearly stated in the history page that the information is there for clarification purposes. If a wikipedia article was required to be made up of only quotes by the person then the article would hardly be objective at all. The fact of the matter is that Jindal's own stance on abortion (one that bans all abortions, yet allows procedures that terminate the pregnancy as a secondary effect) differs from that of the medical community that would also count such procedures as abortion. This is not "original research". I cited the medical definition of abortion, I cited what a scapingectomy is, I cited the double effect, and I cited the American Life League (though at the time I could not access their site for some reason to give a hard link to it). In order for this page to be encyclopedic, the reader needs to understand what Jindal means by being 100% against abortions without exception. To point out sourced material that explains what this means is hardly original research. Furthermore, nothing I said is my orignial thought. In fact, this issue is repeated here, here, here, here, here, and here. Now, if you would like to take the words from another source and directly quote them instead of using my words then you are more than free to do so... be bold! However, WP:OR does suggest that it is preferable for the author to state what is being sourced in his own words. "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." DanielZimmerman (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is not merely that Jindal never said anything about salpingectomy. The problem is that no reliable source discusses salpingectomy in connection with Jindal. Salpingectomy is sometimes used to treat an ectopic pregnancy, in which a fertilized egg has implanted in the fallopian tube instead of inside the uterus, but I see no indication that Jindal would be opposed to abortion of a human in the uterus, if necessary to save the mother's life. (Also, please note that salpingectomy has a rather dark history, involving forced sterilization for eugenic reasons, even when there is no ectopic pregnancy.)
I am not Catholic, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church makes a distinction between "direct abortion" and indirect abortion: "First, while the Church opposes all direct abortions, it does not condemn procedures which result, indirectly, in the loss of the unborn child as a 'secondary effect.' For example, if a mother is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a baby is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the mother’s death. The infant will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the mother’s life. It is not a direct abortion."[9] Obviously, that doesn't mean that the Catholic Church believes a woman can go get a salpingectomy (or other medical procedure that indirectly ends a pregnancy) even though she has no health problems. I think this Wikipedia article as it currently stands is very clear about Jindal's position. Would you please explain why you think it is unclear?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The salpingectomy is an example of a medical procedure used to save the life of the mother that indirectly causes the loss of an unborn child. That is why it is relevant to the article. You state: "I see no indication that Jindal would be opposed to abortion of a human in the uterus, if necessary to save the mother's life." but your quote absolutely states that he would be. "He has also clarified that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child". "Indirectly" is the key word. This shows he would be opposed to procedures that directly cause the loss of an unborn child. This follows the double effect theory that I linked to in those several posts. A salpingectomy or the removal of a cancerous uterus when pregnant would be examples of procedures where the target of the procedure is not the embryo/fetus so the termination of the pregnancy is not the direct purpose of the procedure. If an abortion was required to save the womans life, and that procedure had to directly target the embryo/fetus, then Jindal would be opposed to it because of his statement.
The Catholic church does differentiate between "direct abortion" and "inderect abortion". Jindal follows the Catholic views on abortion in his personal stance on abortion. If the Jindal wikipedia article does not differentiate between the medical definition of abortion and the catholic definition of abortion while discussing Jindal's stance, it does not give a complete picture and in order to be encyclopedic the article needs to be as complete as possible. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. First, we would need a reliable source saying that Jindal precisely follows the exact teachings of the Catholic Church regarding abortion. Then we would need a reliable source saying that the Catholic Church believes that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a "direct" abortion. It's possible that if you can provide those two things, then we might be able to add to the article.
Jindal has clearly said that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child. To an average person, this sounds like he's okay with any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother. You say that's not what he meant, but please give me quotes from reliable sources.
In response to the accusation that he "will let women die", Jindal responded "that's ridiculous." You deleted that Jindal quote from this article, and you appear to be asserting that he was not telling the truth. What reliable basis do you have for asserting that he was not telling the truth?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your conclusion that it sounds like he's ok with any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother. In the AM 690 interview (which I guess cannot be used as a source) he stated that he is ok with the treatment of ectopic pregnancy because the procedure doesn't target the embryo. The only treatment of an ectopic pregnancy that doesn't target the embryo is the salpingectomy. This, combined with the quote you found about Jindal not being opposed to procedures that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child shows me that he is not okay with any abortion necessary to save the life of the mother and that he is only ok with procedures where the loss of pregnancy is not directly caused. If the average persion would read that he is okay with any abortion to save the life of the woman, this is why the clarification is needed. The only reliable source that is needed to prove it is the one you provided because that is what the sentance means. The reliable basis for asserting that he was not telling the truth is also the sentance about the indirect cause. He honestly would let a woman die if the procedure required to save her life directly caused the loss of the embryo/fetus. However, if the intent of the procedure was to do something else (like remove the uterus that is cancerous or remove the segment of tube that the embryo is located) then the procedure would be ok. That is what is meant by indirect.
As for what we need. I believe I have already provided a link showing that the Catholic Chuch sometimes considers a procedure that terminates a pregnancy to be a direct abortion and forbidden in the links I provided to back up my claim. This link also helps to explain the whole double effect and that you may not perform the evil act (an abortion) to do good (save the life of the woman) but you can perform another procedure (removing a cancerous uterus) that may result in the evil happening (loss of the unborn). "The evil effect must be a regrettable byproduct." "One may never do evil hoping that good may come of it. A bad effect may be the consequence of a morally good act, or it may occur simultaneously along with it, but the anticipated good must never be a result of evil actions. Such acts are never morally licit "
A very important quote from that link is "The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. ". This backs up the idea that the key word "indirect" in Bobby Jindal's statement is not only in observance of the Catholic feelings on allowable procedures, but that there is an abortive procedure that would save the life of the woman that is not allowed as long as the intent is the termination of the pregnancy. Basically it goes as follows. If the a Catholic is faced with choice of death or having a direct abortion, the Catholic must choose death.
Here is one more source that describes the double effect and shows that under Catholic law, direct abortions are prohibited even if if is to save the life of the woman.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ "A doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother's life, might nevertheless consistently believe that it would be permissible to perform a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with cancer. In carrying out the hysterectomy, the doctor would aim to save the woman's life while merely foreseeing the death of the fetus. Performing an abortion, by contrast, would involve intending to kill the fetus as a means to saving the mother. "
So I hope I have at least proven, through verifiable sources, that there are circumstnaces where even if the procedure was to save the life of the woman, catholic law would prevent the procedure because the termination of the pregnancy was not indirect. I would also hope that you could see the connection between the double effect and between Bobby Jindal's statement where he would be ok with a procedure that indirectly terminates the pregnancy and that being a Catholic he follows the rules set forth by the church. As for proof of does Jindal follow the Catholic Church. One only needs to look at his own writings to see this. Jindal's words include "The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork" and "“The choice is between Catholicism’s authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy.”" www DOT freerepublic DOT com/focus/f-religion/1609536/posts (cant link to it, it is blacklisted... but it contains the writing of Jindal) Now, if Jindal believes that the Church infallibly determines the cannon of the bible and the Church states that all direct abortions are bad but indirect abortions are permissable to save a life.... do I really need to go on or have I proven my point? DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You say that, “The reliable basis for asserting that he was not telling the truth is also the sentance about the indirect cause.” But Daniel, if a person deliberately says two things that contradict each other, then how do you know which one is false? Additionally, your evidence that he has contradicted himself is extremely weak. You say, “The only treatment of an ectopic pregnancy that doesn't target the embryo is the salpingectomy.” But that’s not necessarily true:
“Salpingectomy is also used to treat an ectopic pregnancy, a condition in which a fertilized egg has implanted in the tube instead of inside the uterus. In most cases, the tube is removed only after drug treatments designed to save the structure have failed. (Women with one remaining fallopian tube are still able to get pregnant and carry a pregnancy to term.) The other alternative to salpingectomy is surgery to remove the fetus from the fallopian tube, followed by surgery to repair the tube.” (Emphasis added.) [10]
It seems clear that drug treatments (as well as surgery to remove the fetus or embryo) do not target the fetus or embryo, but rather are targeted twoard saving the mother's life. Do you think both of them target the fetus?
You continue to insist that, “He honestly would let a woman die if the procedure required to save her life directly caused the loss of the embryo/fetus.” And you deleted his explicit denial from this article.[11] I have still not heard of anything that indicates his denial was a lie. You are making an extremely inflammatory accsation in a biography of a living person, that the subject would let women die. That’s fine if you’re correct, but reliable and verifiable soruces are needed, and even then Wikipedia’s presentation ought to be neutral.
I do not dispute your assertion that, “the Catholic Chuch sometimes considers a procedure that terminates a pregnancy to be a direct abortion and forbidden.” But we would need a reliable source saying that the Catholic Church believes that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion. The source you cite does not indicate the Catholic Church has any such belief. On the contrary, it quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia: “If medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.” It thus seems that the Catholic Church does not believe that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion; for example, the umbilical cord can be cut, resulting in a dead fetus, which can then be removed (apparently without violating any Catholic doctrine).
You also link to this source which discusses a “doctor who believed that abortion was wrong, even in order to save the mother's life.” But this quote does not say that all good Catholic doctors believe that. On the contrary, this source you’ve linked to says that, “it is hard to find a principled ground for drawing this distinction” that you are trying to draw.
Even if you could find a reliable source saying that the Catholic Church believes that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion (and you haven’t done that), you would still have to prove that Jindal subscribes to this precise belief. You cite a “blacklisted” Jindal quote from Free Republic which is unrelated to abortion. And, as I mentioned, you deleted from this article the quote where Jindal explcitly denied that he “will let women die.” [12]
Please take another look at WP:OR and WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiabilty. Thanks.


(Reindenting) First and foremost, I don't need you to remind me to look at wikipedia policies. I have been on wikipedia long enough and I understand them just fine. If you feel that my edits are in violation of wikipedia policies then you are more than welcome to seek any of the resolutions available to wikipedia authors. I was correct in that the salpingectomy is the only procedure that doesn't target the embryo. More specifically, the other two procedures have the direct effect of causing an abortion where as a salpingectomy, the target of the procedure is the tube itself and is not to abort a pregnancy. The result of the procedure may be an abortion of the pregnancy but it is not the primary intent. Your statement of "It seems clear that drug treatments (as well as surgery to remove the fetus or embryo) do not target the fetus or embryo, but rather are targeted twoard saving the mother's life." shows that you do not have a full understanding of the theory surrounding the double effect. Even if the intent is to save the life of the pregnant woman, if the procedure used directly causes an abortion it is not allowed. You state: "You are making an extremely inflammatory accsation in a biography of a living person". Please show me where in the Bobby Jindal article that I have made an extremely inflammatory accusation. Removal of a quote that is contradicted in the article that it was found is not inflammatory at all. In fact, since the article seems to contradict itself then perhaps that should exclude it from consideration as a reliable source as a whole. On this statement of yours

On the contrary, it quotes the Catholic Encyclopedia: “If medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked.” It thus seems that the Catholic Church does not believe that an abortion to save the life of the mother is sometimes considered a forbidden "direct" abortion

You clearly have misinterpreted what the encyclopedia is saying because of the words in bold. If the childs death is caused by an unavoidable consequence of the procedure then you can consider that the "fetal life" is not directly attacked.

"for example, the umbilical cord can be cut, resulting in a dead fetus, which can then be removed (apparently without violating any Catholic doctrine)."

If the ubilical chord was cut by mistake as part of a different procedure then it would not be considered a "direct abortion". However if the purpose of cutting the chord was to abort the pregnancy then clearly it is a direct pregnancy and is forbidden under Catholic law.

Here is a link to the vatican saying: "Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:"

Need more?DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION ": It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother; it may be the burden represented by an additional child, especially if there are good reasons to fear that the child will be abnormal or retarded; it may be the importance attributed in different classes of society to considerations of honor or dishonor, of loss of social standing, and so forth. We proclaim only that none of these reasons can ever objectively confer the right to dispose of another's life, even when that life is only beginning."

Need more? [13] "It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being."

The "blacklisted" page is the free republic, the only place where you can currently see Bobby Jindal's writing where I pulled his quotes from. And while it may not mention abortion, it shows Jindal to be a devout follower of the faith and a person who believes the rulings by the church are infallible.

At the moment, I would suggest that we remove all references to abortion on the Bobby Jindal wikipedia article until we can come to a consensus on the creation of a neutral toned, verifiable, reliable, and 100% correct wording of his stance.


I would also suggest you read WP:Common, as someone who clearly believes that the Catholic Church is infallible when it comes to interpreting the rules would tend to follow the double effect reasoning as a guide for his stance on abortion. DanielZimmerman (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This Jindal article previously said that he “supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life.” It seems like you would still like to include something that gets across this same idea, and that’s inflammatory. But being inflammatory is fine, if it’s true, and well-sourced. I just am not convinced that it’s true and well-sourced. After all, he’s explicitly denied it.[14]
You have now come up with an explicit and authoritative quote indicating that the Vatican will sometimes forbid abortion to save a woman's life: “The gravity of the problem comes from the fact that in certain cases, perhaps in quite a considerable number of cases, by denying abortion one endangers important values to which it is normal to attach great value, and which may sometimes even seem to have priority. We do not deny these very great difficulties. It may be a serious question of health, sometimes of life or death, for the mother....”
You would still need a reliable and verifiable source showing that Jindal would therefore support enforcing this doctrine by law. A "blacklisted" page from Free Republic, that does not even mention abortion, is not adequate. If you do find such a reliable source, then we can start talking about WP:SYN.
In the mean time, perhaps you can tell me this: the Catholic Church forbids masturbation, so does Jindal want to criminalize that too? "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."[15]Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"This Jindal article previously said that he “supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life.” It seems like you would still like to include something that gets across this same idea, and that’s inflammatory."
I would reject that statement (supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life) as being correct since it is incomplete. The article previously stated "During his 2003 run for governor he distinguished himself from Blanco, who is also anti-abortion, by stating that he supports an abortion ban without exceptions for life, health, rape, or incest. His definition of abortion differs from the definition used by some in the medical community, in that it only includes procedures that target the embryo or fetus, a definition that excludes procedures, such as a salpingectomy, that do not target the embryo specifically but still terminate the pregnancy." This is not inflammatory, it is truthful.
"But being inflammatory is fine, if it’s true, and well-sourced." Being inflammatory is not fine. Wikipedia articles should have neutral tone. They should not be inflammatory.
I just am not convinced that it’s true and well-sourced. After all, he’s explicitly denied it. You are taking the quote out of context and only looking at it in a vacuum. The quote exists in the entirety of the article. The statements around the article clearly state what procedures that would cause an abortion that Jindal would not be opposed to, and those procedures are ones that indirectly cause an abortion.
I would accept a wording that stated something like "Jindal is 100% pro-life and is against "direct abortions" without exception. Jindal is not opposed to procedures that would indirectly cause the pregnancy to abort". Would you accept this wording? It uses the words from the Times Picayune, the Gambit, and your other source that you provided. The only problem i have is using the term "direct" as their has to be a better term.
You would still need a reliable and verifiable source showing that Jindal would therefore support enforcing this doctrine by law. Why? Nowhere is the article saying what Jindal would or would not legislate.Trying to guess what exact legislation he would enact would be speculation and Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. The article is only describing his personal beliefs. So there should be no requirement to find a source showing that Jindal supports enforcing this doctrine by law since there is no statement to that effect being placed in the article.
A "blacklisted" page from Free Republic, that does not even mention abortion, is not adequate. You are really dwelling on the "blacklisted" idea far too much. Blacklisting doesnt in and of itself state that the reference is bad. All it does is prevent people from linking to it (probably because someone tried to spam the site with the link to the main website previously). The Free Republic article does show the Jindal article correctly.
In the mean time, perhaps you can tell me this: the Catholic Church forbids masturbation, so does Jindal want to criminalize that too? Again, the section is "positions on selected issues" and not "what Jindal would criminalize". However, there are no reliable instances showing Jindal discussing masterbation so inclusion of Jindal's views on Masterbation would not be valid for inclusion on wikipedia (so it is not a valid argument about what we should include about Jindal's well publicized stance on abortion).
The bottom line is this. I have showed that Bobby Jindal is against procured abortions in any circumstance but is not against people obtaining procedures that would cause a pregnancy to abort indirectly. The following wording in bold should be the appropriate wording for the Jindal abortion stance (with sources described in parens).
Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to NRLC (From the On the Issues website) and believes all life is precious (Times picayune). He is against abortion without exception (From the Gambit). However, he is not against medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy ([ http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=AD&p_theme=ad&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0FEC6C97E8FB05E0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM from the link Ferrylodge provided]). Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape ([ http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2003-11-04/commentary.html Gambit link again, and a small edit from the current wording since no site suggests he supports its use in all purposes, just for rape]). He opposes using taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and destruction of human embryos (unchanged from the article.)
Now, can we all agree to this wording (without the text inside the parens of course, and providing the actual links to those sources)? I dropped the explanation of whose definition is what. I dropped the salpingectomy example. Nothing in there is my original thought and all come from verifiable, reliable, and "notable" sources. There is no OR, no Sythesis, no inflammatory comments, no speculation on what he would do with those policies and no bias whatsoever. I would be happy with this wording and I feel it is encyclopedic. Lets keep any further discussion on the words in bold only. DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if you would please include links to go with your parenthetical sources, so we can easily check the sources. Also, a phrase like "he is against...." is not very informative. Does that mean he is personally against, or that he would criminalize, or you don't know? If you don't know, then why not say that you don't know in the Wikipedia article?
Generally speaking, I think this draft language looks okay. But again, why can't we mention that Jindal has explicitly denied that he "will let women die"?[16] Incidentally, it will be important to mention that the Gambit piece is an opinion column rather than a news report.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The links for the parenthetical sources are already provided either in the article currently or on this page. However, i will go back and make the parentheticals into links, but I also need to make a change or two (to offer a suggestion for against (even though I don't think it is an issue and that we do not have to specifically state what we dont know in a wikipedia article... we just don't inlcude it. The sources say he is anti-abortion so we say it is anti-abortion and we dont guess as to what lengths he would go in support of his pro-life feelings.)
Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to NRLC (From the On the Issues website) and believes all life is precious (Times picayune). He is anti-abortion without exception (From the Gambit). However, he does not condemn medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy (from the link Ferrylodge provided). Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape (Gambit link again, and a small edit from the current wording since no site suggests he supports its use in all purposes, just for rape). He opposes stem cell research (unchanged from the article.) and voted against increasing federal funding to exapand embryonic stem cell lines. (on the issues)
The time article only says that he opposes stem cell research and makes no comment about funding. It also does not qualify what kind of stem cell research he opposes (though it is likely to be embryonic only). However, on the issues does provide a vote against expanding embryonic stem cell lines. So I changed that wording accordingly.
I do not think we need to say that the Gambit article is an opinion piece because it is irrelevant. Opinions pieces can contain elements that are not their opinion and they are not stating an opinion that he is "anti-abortion", they are stating it as a fact.
The quote about "letting women die" doesn't need to be included. The wikipedia article is not saying that Jindal would let women die, the wikipedia article does not include a quote from anyone else that states Jindal would let women die, so there is no reason to include the Jindal rebuttal that to the Democratic Party's claiming that he would let women die. The article correctly states that Jindal is anti-abortion without exception and that he is not opposed to procedures to save a pregnant womans life that indirectly cause the pregnancy to abort. It also includes information on votes and other related issues that he supports. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I can start citing additional Wikipedia policies to you, but is that really necessary? You want to quote the Gambit piece, but you don't want to mention that it's an opinion column rather than a news report. That's not appropriate, and I disagree with you that the stuff you want to quote from the Gambit is purely factual.
Additionally, you want to cite the Gambit for the notion that he's anti-abortion without exception. Even if that were from a news report rather than from an opinion piece, still it leaves the impression that he might let women die rather than permit abortion. Therefore, it would reflect a blatant POV to use a quote like the Gambit quote, while excluding his denial (appearing in a news article!) that he "will let women die."
Suppose that this Wikipedia article did not say anything about him being anti-abortion without exceptions. Still, it would be highly relevant that he has specifically and publically denied that he "will let women die" (this is not merely a rebuttal but a very important position statement).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not necessary for you to cite policy to me. What I wrote is completely within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.
You want to quote the Gambit piece, but you don't want to mention that it's an opinion column rather than a news report. There is no need to mention it is an opinion column because what is being quoted is not presented in the opinion column (which is an endorsement of Jindal by the way) as an opinion but as fact.
That's not appropriate, and I disagree with you that the stuff you want to quote from the Gambit is purely factual. On what basis do you disagree with me? Because of a quote that you insist on taking out of context?
Additionally, you want to cite the Gambit for the notion that he's anti-abortion without exception. Even if that were from a news report rather than from an opinion piece, still it leaves the impression that he might let women die rather than permit abortion. The description as it is currently written accurately describes Jindal's stance on abortion and the extra quote may work to mislead the reader to believe that his stance on abortion would NEVER allow a woman to die. Again, wikipeida is not a crystal ball and the article should not speculate on whether women would or would not be allowed to die. It should just provide accurate, factual, verifiable and reliable information about the person.
But if you dont want to use the Gambit article as proof, we can use the initial Capital Watch article that I used initially to word the stance that states: Blanco and Jindal both oppose abortion, but Blanco supports the exception for rape, incest and to save the life of the woman. Jindal opposes the exceptions but said if a procedure to save the life of the woman is performed that results in an abortion, that's OK. I don't see how you can be any more clear than that. So here is the edit with the changed link.
Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to NRLC (From the On the Issues website) and believes all life is precious (Times picayune). He is opposes abortion without exception (Capital Watch article). However, he does not condemn medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy (from the link Ferrylodge provided and Capital Watch article). Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape (Gambit link again, and a small edit from the current wording since no site suggests he supports its use in all purposes, just for rape). He opposes stem cell research (unchanged from the article.) and voted against increasing federal funding to exapand embryonic stem cell lines. (on the issues)
So there is my rewritten statement using a different source for Jindal being against acceptions (that spells it out clearly).
Suppose that this Wikipedia article did not say anything about him being anti-abortion without exceptions. Still, it would be highly relevant that he has specifically and publically denied that he "will let women die" (this is not merely a rebuttal but a very important position statement) Why would that be highly relevant? Why would someone deny that he would let women die unless it was a rebuttal? Why open the door to subjectivity in an article on the topic of whether Jindal's beliefs would require a woman to die in certain cases? I mean, if you put the rebuttal by Jindal you would HAVE to also include the exact wording from the Democratic Party as well for the sake of balance. And by doing so you introduce the question of whether Jindal would REALLY let a woman die or not (which causes speculation and again, not a crystal ball). But the bottom line is this. Do you feel comfortable with the wording that I have proposed? DanielZimmerman (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The Capitol Watch article is a news report, and you did a good job finding it. Using a news report is preferable to using an opinion column. The Capitol Watch article says: "Blanco and Jindal both oppose abortion, but Blanco supports the exception for rape, incest and to save the life of the woman. Jindal opposes the exceptions but said if a procedure to save the life of the woman is performed that results in an abortion, that's OK. Gambit newspaper in New Orleans also said Jindal told it he supports the use of emergency-room contraception for rape victims who request it."
So, I don't think there's any need anymore to cite to the Gambit column. If you want to go ahead and change this Wikipedia article accordingly, then go ahead, and I'll tweak it. I would prefer that this Wikipedia article includes Jindal's statement that he will not "let women die", at least in a footnote. This is very obviously an important policy position.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(reindent)

The capital watch page was part of the justification for the wording from very early on (go up and see some of the original discussion on the wording of abortion in the article to see that.
The Gambit Column does provide the information about emergency room contraception which is not mentioned anywhere else. So for that, it is needed.
I will go ahead and reword the article but again, I would prefer that the article not include the Jindal statement on not letting women die because, again, we would be posting a rebuttal to a statement that we are not posting and that would make the article unbalanced. Or are you planning on putting the exact wording of the flier, in the complete context in which it was written and then Jindal's rebuttal in the complete context in which is was written? I just think having the whole "letting women die" issue allows for weasel words, undermines the encyclopedic content of the page, and in the grand scheme of his political career the incident involving that one flier is a minor blip in the radar. DanielZimmerman (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you're incorrect about the Gambit op/ed column. The info about emergency room contraception is in the Capital Watch news article: "Gambit newspaper in New Orleans also said Jindal told it he supports the use of emergency-room contraception for rape victims who request it." So, there's no need to cite to an opinion column here.
Your opposition to mentioning Jindal's statement that he will not "let women die" is really unfounded. Yes, he was answering a charge that he would let women die. Politicians answer other people all the time. Do you really want to take the position that answers are not acceptable things to put in Wikipedia articles? You seem to be very interested in whether Jindal would support an exception to an abortion ban, to protect the life of the mother. And yet you refuse to include Jindal's direct and unambiguous statement on that matter. Is there no way that you would allow this statement by Jindal to go into this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not opposed to putting answers to questions in Wikipedia articles as a general rule. However, there may be specific times where putting in answers to questions does the article more harm than good. If you put the answer to the question, you would have to put the question that was answered. You would have to also put both the question and the answer in the context in which they are stated. Which basically opens the article, again, to the speculation on what he means when he says what he says.
Part of the context is "He has also clarified that he is not against medical procedures to save the life of the mother that indirectly cause the loss of an unborn child, saying "The Democratic Party is trying to insinuate that I will let women die, and that's ridiculous". Is there more to the article?
And there is also the question of what, exactly, did he find ridiculous. Does he find the claim that he would let women die ridiculous? Or does he find the fact that they would use his abortion stance against him in a "negative attack" ridiculous? Jindal was very big at pointing out negative attacks in his campaign. OR does he mean that since he wouldn't be taking part in the decision (since at the time he had stated that this was a federal issue and that there was no need to waste our time at the state level pushing abortion measures (see gambit link)) that it wouldn't be him "letting" the woman die. Where you see a clear cut answer, I see at least three meanings to what he said.
We also have to then get into the "what are they talking about when they mean abortion" issue that you seemed to object to including in the article. Because the Democratic party, when talking about abortion, is likely talking about all abortions (direct and indirect) while the article only mentions that Jindal is ok with procedures that are not direct abortions, yet it ignores medical procedures that directly cause the termination fo the pregnancy. What does he feel about that? Would he be gainst those? Would he let the woman die in that circumstances?
The article, as it stands, gives a complete picture of Jindal's stance on abortion. He is against abortions and does not support any exceptions. However, he is not opposed to procedures that would directly cause the termination of the pregnancy. Period. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave it the way it is for now, but there's no reason to cite an opinion article, when a news report says the same thing. The info about emergency room contraception is in the Capital Watch news article: "Gambit newspaper in New Orleans also said Jindal told it he supports the use of emergency-room contraception for rape victims who request it." So, there's no need to cite to an opinion column here. Also, you really ought to format the footnotes you've added, instead of just putting bare URLs there. See you later.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I was going to go back and add more information to the links but I at least wanted the links there as references. I have no problem removing the gambit information since the information is in the capital watch. However, opinion articles can contain verifiable facts and should not be taboo, just used carefully to be sure that what is being presented is fact and not opinion. Thanks for working with me to find a good solution to make this a better article. DanielZimmerman (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offshore Oil Bill

Is it encyclopedic, necessary, or otherwise "notable" (blah) to include information on someone writing a bill that does not become law? DanielZimmerman (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the bill gained great coverage or influence then I say yes. A lot of times people have proposed controversial bills that got a lot of attention, but the bills did not pass. These sorts of things should probably be kept in an article. Thanks. -- OtherAJ (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested semi-protection for the page.

Because IP accounts are changing Jindal's name, I have put forward the request to semi-protect the page so we can prevent anonymous IP's from changing the name over and over and over again. Hopefully this will help to maintain the integrity of the article. DanielZimmerman (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I support this move. This is getting rather ridiculous, honestly. With other sites starting to put out false information about Governor Bobby Jindal, we need to protect the accuracy of this article. Thanks. -- OtherAJ (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the request was quickly rejected and so far my complaint about it has gone unanswered. I wonder how many people have to vandalize the article before enough is enough in the eyes of wikipedia administrators. I don't understand why you can edit wikipedia anonymously anyway. But I guess that is a discussion for another day. DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If this issue pops up again, please feel free to leave me a message (or email me) so I can quickly weigh in before it's decided. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
SUCCESS!! The page in under temporary protection from anonymous edits! I guess my powers of persuasion are high today! DanielZimmerman (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Good job. It says it will expire in only a few days though. :^( -- OtherAJ (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)